gion of the Pope for the time being, | and up to the reign of William 3rd, the principle of the Constitution, and the religion of the State were direct intoleration, without the slightest regard to the religious opinions of others. To so great an extent, indeed, was this carried, and so little was the establishment of our religion thought of, that an individual who lived through two or three reigns was actually obliged to change his religion eight different times. The individual to whom he alluded was old Parr, who attained the great age of above 150 years, and who was forced to change his creed eight times by the terror of various punishments. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) seemed to think that the admission of the Jews to that House would have the effect of injuring the Established Church, by raising an opinion that the Members of that House were wholly indifferent to religion. His opinion, on the contrary, was, that the Established Religion was too well fixed in the affections of the people to require the aid of exclusion to secure it. They were told, however, that the case of the Catholics formed no precedent which could govern them in dealing with the Jews. That they were only 27,000 in numberthat they were unimportant as a body-and that there was no reason for those apprehensions with regard to them which formed so strong an argument for the removal of exclusion from the others. He considered it to be most unfortunate and most lamentable that the opponents of the measure should be compelled to resort to such arguments, and he deplored the existence of a feeling which would seek to resist a measure of justice until it came before them under circumstances so suspicious. If, however, the number of the Jews was so small, and their influence so bounded, that there could be no danger in refusal, what possible danger could there be in admission? He was reluctant to press on the time of the House, but he thought the period was arrived when, without any violation of the principles of the Constitution, they could grant what the Jews required, with safety to the Established Church, and with satisfaction to those who prayed this concession. The right hon. Gentleman had declared repeatedly, that he was unwilling to allow the Jews to be admitted to that House. That he could not well understand, for he believed the right hon. Gentleman was by no means unwilling to meet the Jews else where, and the time was not far distant when he would more than ever require their assistance. The right hon. Gentleman seemed unwilling to trust them in Parliament, and yet they had been intrusted with affairs ten thousand times more important than any connected with the possession of a seat in that House. The Jews desired nothing more than to be placed in the same situation as the Roman Catholics. They were willing even to abandon a part of what they already possessed, in order to obtain the same privileges as the Catholics. They were willing to give up the possession of their advowsons, and some other privileges; and for these reasons he thought that those who were not friendly to the Jews would act at least more liberally if they permitted the Bill to be brought in, and obtained some understanding of its provisions, before they declared against it a determined hostility. Mr. Perceval entreated the House, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to preserve the religion of Christianity-the religion of the State-from being defiled by the introduction of the Bill now proposed. If they wished to preserve the name of a Christian people-if they were anxious to support the distinctions of their Christian Constitution, he implored them to reject a measure which gave political power to a sect whose religion was hostile to both. Without trying to reconcile his vote on the Roman Catholic Question with the one he should give that night, he should merely say that he resisted this bill on the great principle that its admission was inconsistent with our Christian Constitution. Lord Morpeth said, that, if to justify himself in hazarding a few observations upon this subject, he had felt any hope that he should have been able to add any thing to what had already been brought forward, he had certainly better not now have risen ; but he was inclined to think that upon an entirely new question the expression of a mere concurrence of opinion might be of some use, from however humble a Member of that House, though it added nothing in point of argument. The effect of argument might safely be left to the speech of his hon. and learned friend, the very circumstance of whose introducing this measure had conferred much benefit upon it-much by his great powers of mind, and much by his blameless character. An objection, anticipated indeed by his hon. and learned friend, had been taken upon a religious ground, and to that he would confine himself, because the arguments of any other kind had been already answered in an able manner by those who preceded him. In his opinion, indeed, all who paid taxes to the State, and contributed to the wages of the public servants, were entitled to the enjoyment of all civil rights. Against the measure, on religious grounds, there were arrayed the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), the hon. Gentleman who spoke last (Mr. Perceval), and the hon. Baronet, the member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis). To the last hon. Member he would say, "Educated at that University like the worthy Baronet, nursed like him in its discipline, and attached like him to its recollections, I am never sorry to have an opportunity of showing, that the spirit of hostility to the broad principle of religious freedom which pervades the parliamentary conduct of the worthy Baronet is not the inevitable result of a residence within its walls. And I am the more anxious to guard myself in every instance against such a disposition, because I believe it in fact to be the same spirit which, modified in this instance by the genius of the age and the mildness of his nature, formerly in every quarter of Christendom prompted every species of oppression against the persecuted Jew, and thought it virtue." It was foretold by the Author of the religion in the profession of which we are so inclined to vaunt ourselves, that, He came not to send peace on earth, but a sword, and the passions of mankind have interpreted the prophecy as if it had been a command. The opposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer went altogether to the appearance which he thought the House would present, of conceding this measure, and not to the principles on which it was founded; but if they must be intolerant he trusted that it would be on grounds less mean and pitiful than those stated by the right hon. Gentleman that night. The right hon. Gentleman had stated, and he was seconded in it by the member for Oxford, that if the measure was conceded, the Constitution of the country would cease to be exclusively Christian. This proposition was startling at first; but he apprehended it would be found that it was addressed more for love of sound than with a regard to the sense of the House. For his part he could not understand how the admission of a few Jews to their share in the privileges of the Constitution could render that Church less eminent or less powerful; but he could understand that a system of exclusion, and of meddling interference, would render any party both powerful and mischievous. We were not disposed to look upon either France, or Holland, or America, as being less of Christian countries, since they had adopted the great principle of making the discharge of civil functions independent of a prescribed religious belief; not, undoubtedly, because we did not recognise the importance of religious belief, but because that importance was so infinite as to make all human interference with it as inadequate as it was presumptuous. It had been contended by the hon. member for Oxford, that the numbers of the Jews prevented the possibility of their admission to political power. He (Lord Morpeth) could not imagine ary thing more likely to favour their cause than a consideration of numbers, and he might say-"I thank you, Jew, for teaching me that word."-He wished to ask where, in this case, was the danger? One of the chief reasons which had made him so anxiously wish, and so sincerely rejoice in the accomplishment of the great measure of Catholic relief, was the assurance he felt that Protestantism would not suffer from its more close alliance in temporal matters with Catholicism; still less has Christianity itself-the faith which unites Protestant, and Catholic, and Greek under her common banner-planted upon the rock that shall never crumble-any thing to dread from any possible result of the measure which has been so convincingly recommended. The Solicitor General said, that the situation of the Jews had been more than once likened to that of the Roman Catholics, although it appeared to him there was a wide and material difference between them. The Catholics had possessed great power and privileges, of which they had been, for good reasons, deprived; and it did great honour to those who, studying well the circumstances of the country, had restored them to the situation they before had held. But how did the case of the Jews stand? They had possessed nothing; they held nothing. They had no civil rights; they never had any. He looked with as much abhorrence as any man, and deplored as much as any man the atrocities once perpetrated against them; but he could not, therefore, be insensible to the nature of their situation in this country. They had no natural rights; and Lord Coke, although he agreed with the hon. | to be this: The door of the Constitution and learned Gentleman (Dr. Lushington) has been opened to the Catholics of Irein a manner not very creditable to his cha- land were they, therefore, prepared to racter, had declared they were the natural admit other claimants? They were now enemies of the Christians: such a senti- come to this point: were they or were they ment was however a greater disgrace to not to put an end to all distinctions on the his age than to Lord Coke. After sus- subject of religious opinions? It was said taining great persecutions, they were that there were no petitions against it from banished altogether; and when they re- the people. He, for one, was glad there turned at the Restoration in small numbers, were no petitions, and that such popular they returned as men who were not per- ferments as those of 1753 would not again mitted to claim any rights of citizenship, disgrace the country. He wished the quesor to hold lands, or in any manner to be tion to be decided by the good sense of the received as subjects of the State. As they House; and he thought the absence of chose, however, to come back in this man- these petitions one of the most favourable ner, and under these circumstances, it was signs of the increasing knowledge of the impossible to deal harshly with them, or to time. It had been said by the hon. Memsubject them to the same restrictions and ber (Mr. Macauley) who had that night adpersecutions in modern times which they dressed the House for the first time with had suffered before their banishment. great credit to himself, that it was our own Nothing, he was ready to admit, could well fault that the Jews were not Englishmen ; justify the code of laws enacted with re- and he would admit that we were much to gard to the Catholics, who were deprived blame if any legislation could make them of rights they had formerly enjoyed; but Englishmen. But they had a peculiar against the Jews, with the exception of an character stamped on them by their own Act passed in the reign of Queen Anne, institutions, they were severed by them which permitted a child who became a con- from all other people, they could not form vert to Christianity to take his parents' pro- a component part of any society in which perty by succession, in defiance of his they might be mingled; and as our laws had wishes-an act not carried into effect be- not made them Jews, they could not make yond one or two instances, no statutes had them Englishmen. They married not with been expressly directed. They came, then, Christians, and entered not into any of to this country without any of the rights of those relations with the rest of the comcitizens, but how differently were they now munity which constituted family ties, and situated? Their religion was tolerated, and were the real bonds of society. No such they were protected. They had a right to objections applied to the Catholics; they sepulture, their marriages were legal, intermarried with other sects; they formed their children were legitimate, and they part of the great family of Englishmen, and could take by descent; they could pur- were interested in the country as well as chase land, and they could transmit it to in their own moveable property. Would their posterity. He knew that a doubt had | hon. Members be ready to associate with been expressed whether or not the Jews Jews on that familiar footing which would could hold land but in his opinion, they be necessary if they were in office? He behad as much and as good a legal right lieved not; and he therefore, for one, would to hold land, and to take and leave it by not allow the law to say they were worthy descent, as any other person in the country. of those privileges which the common sense If there was any doubt on the subject, al- of the community at large, and the general though he thought there was not, he should feelings even of those who advocated their be glad to see those doubts removed by a cause would in practice deny them. He bill brought in for that purpose: he was not disposed to emancipate the Jews should be happy to see the Jews become in part. He would not open the door landholders; he should rejoice to see them of the Constitution while the feelings of become country gentlemen. On the other the people placed a sentinel at the gate? grounds, however, he confessed he saw ob- The arguments drawn in favour of the jections to the admission of the Jews. Motion from concessions to the Catholics, it Christianity was a part of the law of the would be seen did not apply to this Motion land, although he was told that it varied but if they did, he would say, true they had with the opinions of the day; still, with admitted the Catholics to participate in the all the variations of creeds and opinions, it advantages of the Constitution, but they was Christianity. The question seemed had not yet sufficient experience of the result. They had opened the door to office, and to that House, but there was not yet time for the Catholic to obtain office as he must attain it; and therefore, although the state of Ireland might be benefitted, they did not yet know the full value of the experiment. In the absence, therefore, of any sufficient knowledge of what they had done, he, for one, was not willing to go further, and place the Jews in that House, or admit them to the opportunity of being placed in the high offices of the State; and in this respect, although he did not attach much importance to the question of numbers, still it was not to be left wholly out of consideration. Mr. W. Smith maintained, that if it were desirable that the Jews should at any time be admitted within the pale of the Constitution, it was desirable that they should be admitted with as little delay as possible. He must beg to express, not merely his approbation, but his admiration of the manner in which his hon. friend had brought forward the present Motion. He admired both the sincerity and courage of his hon. friend; and he had evinced both those qualities in the highest degree. Religion ought not, in his opinion, to be introduced into any question similar to the present, which was a question, not of religion, but of politics. Let those who introduced it recollect a passage in the book which they so justly revered-" Render unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's;" and then came the grand distinction-" and unto God the things which are God's." On all points of religion he would leave men to their own consciences. As to political considerations, he wished to know in what times had the Jews evinced any inclination towards such political principles as ought to prevent them from having a share in the civil rights enjoyed by their fellow subjects? He had never heard of any such case. He had heard, indeed, of their having engaged to furnish loans for other countries than those in which they lived. If, however, they had not the patriotic feeling which would prevent such a transaction, the imputation rested, not on them, but on the governments which withheld from them those civil rights and privileges which alone rendered a man's country dear to him. He recollected an hon. Member, who had that evening opposed the Motion, and from whose good sense he should have expected a different line of conduct, declared in the last Session of Parliament that when once a dozen Catholic Members were introduced into the House, it would be for the supreme power of the State to take care of the Church of England, but that, for his own part, he should consider it as gone. That hon. Member must believe the Church of England to be founded on a very tottering basis if the introduction into the House of Commons of a dozen Catholics or Jews was calculated to lead to its destruction. He (Mr. W. Smith) was one of those who thought that political rights and privileges should have nothing to do with religion. But if he were asked whether they should not have any thing to do with any part of religion, he should answer that religion was divided into two distinct parts, the moral and the Creed. If Government were to have any thing whatever to do with religion, it ought to be with the moral portion of it, and not at all with the Creed. What was the morality of the Jews? The morality of the Christians. What Church was there belonging to the establishment which had not the Ten Commandments, the morality of the Jews, side by side with the Creed? If any rational man saw the Commandments and the Athanasian Creed thus in juxtaposition, was it doubtful to which he would give the preference? To the question of morality, therefore, they ought, in his opinion, to confine themselves. If they extended their consideration to matters of faith, no one could tell where they would stop. If they looked only at civil obedience, there was no danger of their falling into political error. He trusted the House would follow the sound advice given them by his hon. friend, and perfect the great work of the last Session. Mr. R. Grant said, he would make a very short reply. It had been allowed by every one that the loyalty and excellent conduct of the Jews were unexceptionable. No man, not even the right hon. Gentleman, had thrown any imputation upon them. It was quite unnecessary, therefore, for him to trouble the House at any length; for he appealed to every unprejudiced person who heard him, if any subject had ever been more victoriously argued than the Motion had been by those hon. Members who had supported it. It was perfectly evident, indeed, that their arguments were unanswerable. The great objection of those who opposed the Motion seemed to consist in the phrase, "they are Jews; we are Christians." Now, in his opinion, the very reason for admitting the objects of his Motion into a full participation of the civil rights of their countrymen was, that they not grant it to you, because you are not so were Jews, and that we were Christians. have as strong claims upon us for emanciHe did not wish to say anything disrespect-pation as the Catholics had, but we will ful of the right hon. Gentleman, but the exposition of the right hon. Gentleman's reasons for opposing the Motion appeared to him to be most extraordinary. The greater part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech ought to have been pronounced three years ago. That the prejudices of the people ought not to be shocked, that the national feeling was adverse to the proposition, that the existing law was excellent, that the religion of the State would be endangered by any change; all these were the allegations which, year after year, during a long course of years, had been advanced with fluency in hostility to the great measure which, nevertheless, had last year been triumphant. He would not answer these allegations in the present instance; he would simply recommend the right hon. Gentleman to consult the Parliamentary Reports of his own speeches. What! after the Catholic question had been so decided, were they to permit the present question to pass through a period of similar agitation? Were they to discuss it for thirty years, and at the expiration of that period were the survivors to be told that the occupiers of the Treasury Bench saw their error, and that they agreed to toleration for ever? The right hon. Gentleman said, that the House must consult the prejudices of the people. Did the right hon. Gentleman recollect that a few years ago the people thought that Jews should be tortured, that they should be deprived of their property, that their wives and children should be But torn from them, that they should be expelled HOUSE OF LORDS. MINUTES.] Petitions were presented by Lord WHARN- Returns Ordered. On the Motion of the Marquis of BUTE, of the quantity of Coals exported from Newport and Cardiff, (Monmouthshire) to Bristol, between 1792 and 1797, between 1797 and 1803, and between 1803 and 1850. EAST RETFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.] The Earl of Carnarvon presented a Petition from certain voters in East Retford against this Bill. The Marquis of Salisbury took the leave to postpone the second reading of opportunity of saying, that he begged the Bill till the 3rd of May. The noble marquis said, he did so at the request of a who had a deep interest in the measure, noble Duke (Newcastle, as we understood), and who feared his inability to attend on the day for which the second reading was now fixed, from indisposition. Lord Holland did not wish to directly oppose the postponement suggested by the noble Marquis, but to put it to him whether the discussion of a great public question, in which great public interests were involved, should be deferred, solely to suit the personal convenience of any individual, however interested. There were a great number of witnesses to be examined, and if the measure were postponed, it might not be completed during the Session. The Earl of Malmesbury thought, with |